Archives for the month of: March, 2014

This was a good panel discussion on Chris Hayes’ show on MSNBC about the redesign of the SAT.

What came through clearly is that the SAT–like all standardized tests–favors those who are the haves of society, those who have family income and family education.

Chris refers to a recent study (which I will say more about on Monday) showing that the kids who took the SAT or ACT did no better in college than those who were admitted without taking those tests.

High school grades actually predict college success better than the college entry exams.

The most surprising panelist was from Kaplan Test Prep, who seems incredibly happy about the redesign of the SAT, as it offers new worlds to conquer. He defended the SAT on grounds that admission to college is basically an elitist activity, and everyone wants to get whatever edge they can while competing for coveted slots in selective colleges or programs.

Everyone agreed that the SAT is graded on a curve, and those who have the most will end up on the right side of the curve.

Jan Resseger writes of her delight in discovering that Mike Rose has released a revised edition of “Why School?”

Resseger writes:

“In the 2014 edition, Rose has revised, updated, and expanded Why School? It now addresses the impact of President Obama’s Race to the Top program and other federal programs that have emerged since 2009—including problems with the waivers now being granted to address the lingering effects of the the No Child Left Behind Act, long over-due for reauthorization.

“A much expanded chapter on standards and accountability now explores the goals of the Common Core Standards as well as Rose’s worries about the Common Core testing and implementation.

“Three new chapters speak to issues that have emerged since the first edition of Rose’s book. “Being Careful About Character” examines books like Paul Tough’s How Children Succeed with their thesis that schools can help overcome poverty with programs to strengthen character. “My worry is that we will embrace these essentially individual and technocratic fixes—mental conditioning for the poor—and abandon broader social policy aimed at poverty itself.”

” Another new chapter examines the wave of MOOCs and other on-line education, exploring the learning assumptions we rarely discuss and raising serious questions we ought to be asking before we thoughtlessly adopt these technologies.

“From my point of view the most important new chapter is “The Inner Life of the Poor.” “The poor,” writes Rose, “are pretty much absent from public and political discourse, except as an abstraction—an income category low on the socioeconomic status index—or as a generalization: people dependent on the government, the ‘takers,’ a problem.” “More than a few of Barack Obama’s speeches are delivered from community colleges, but the discussion of them is always in economic and functional terms… I have yet to find in political speech or policy documents any significant discussion of what benefit—other than economic—the community college might bring… To have a prayer of achieving a society that realizes the potential of all its citizens, we will need institutions that affirm the full humanity, the wide sweep of desire and ability of the people walking through the door.”

Bertis Downs is a great supporter of public education who lives in Athens, Georgia, and sends his daughter to Clarke Central High School. He is also a valued director of the Network for Public Education.

In this post, he thanks President Obama for recognizing the great things happening in his local high school. But he invites the President to visit Athens and see what his policies are doing to the school.

He writes:

“The policies currently promoted by your Department of Education are actually hurting– not helping– schools like ours. It is clear we will reduce schools’ efficacy if public education remains fixated on tests that only measure limited concepts – tests that regularly relegate less advantaged children into the “bottom half” and limit their access to broader education.

“Why does the law distill the interactions of our teachers and students over the course of a year into a high-stakes multiple choice test? Is this really a valid system of accountability for teachers, based so heavily on their students’ test scores? If so, why are so many public school parents, teachers and students pushing back against it? And why aren’t the private schools insisting on it?

“In my daughter’s English class at Clarke Central, students engage the works of Plato and learn to discern and make philosophical arguments about abstract concepts like piety; they read Hemingway and learn how to engage questions such as whether a protagonist’s moral code can be attributed to the author. You cannot pick “A, B, C, or D” for such things, or if you can, then the entire experience is trivialized. Of course assessments are a necessary part of any educational process, to help guide, inform and improve instruction, but the high-stakes test-and-punish regime now in place is not doing that.

“Choices” like “prep academies” on the public dime make a diverse population like Clarke Central’s increasingly rare, and the No Excuses model schools serve poor and minority populations almost exclusively. Since we know that concentrated poverty so often correlates with low standardized test scores, why is such over-testing and misuse of testing so central to current policy focus? Is that where your education policy is taking us–toward a de facto two-track system with schools for well-to-do students and other schools for those from poverty? Your speeches do not suggest any of this, especially when you talk about “opportunity for all,” ”great teachers,” and “setting high standards.” But current policies, accompanied by the sweet-sounding elixir of “choice,” are reducing the ability of skilled and effective teachers to really teach. Surely you must recognize that privatized models of competition conflict with American education’s historic commitment to empower each child to reach his or her highest potential, a commitment based on educators working together in collaboration as a team.”

Erin Osborne warns in this powerful article at Salon.com that the profiteers are invading the classroom. They aren’t just selling pencils and textbooks. They are creating business ventures to make millions from controlling and directing the curriculum and testing, supplying the software and hardware that the new curriculum and testing requires.

Tellingly, she titles her article: “Keep Fox News Out of the Classroom! Rupert Murdoch, Common Core, and the Dangerous Rise of For-Profit Public Education.”

Arne Duncan spins a narrative that the Common Core standards mark a brilliant new direction for American education, in which achievement gaps will disappear as every child learns the exact same lessons in the same sequence in every state and school district.

But Osborne sees something else:

America’s most recent education reform, the Common Core State Standards, has divided teachers and parents across the United States. Whether or not the standards mark a step in the right direction for the education system, one thing is for sure. For the first time in American history, businesses are able to freely tap into the K-12 market on a large scale, and they aren’t waiting.

Make no mistake, she writes, the Common Core standards were designed to create a national market for goods and services (Joanne Weiss, tapped by Secretary Duncan to run Race to the Top, said that this was the purpose of national standards). Now, entrepreneurs are devising plans to get rich from taxpayer dollars:

How have the authors proposed we track the success of this reform? Testing, and lots of it. Along with the Common Core come two new major testing consortiums called SmarterBalanced and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. Forget your No. 2 pencil; these aren’t the bubble tests you remember from school but adaptive computer testing that is required two to three times a year for every student in every grade. From the SmarterBalanced website, “The full suite of summative, interim, and formative assessments is estimated to cost $27.30 per student … These costs are estimates because a sizable portion of the cost is for test administration and scoring services that will not be provided by Smarter Balanced; states will either provide these services directly or procure them from vendors in the private sector.”

Big business in education isn’t new. Pearson and McGraw-Hill have dominated the textbook market while the College Board, makers of the SAT and Advanced Placement courses, are the veritable gatekeepers to higher education. The entire U.S. education system has been valued at nearly $1.5 trillion, second only to the healthcare industry. As media mogul Rupert Murdoch said after acquiring education company Amplify (previously known as Wireless Generations), “When it comes to K-12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching.”

Until the creation of Common Core, businesses have found breaking into the K-12 market very difficult. States have historically written their own curriculums and standards, buying suitable materials and textbooks as they saw fit. Creating content that was accessible to multiple states was difficult and being able to approach the districts within their tiny budget window was nearly impossible. The nuanced field of state, local and federal funding and regulations that companies are forced to navigate takes years to master and states were the ones controlling the checkbook.

From a business point of view, why go to them when you can make them come to you? Many of the people who financially aided the creation of Common Core have investments in place in companies that would do quite well with the standards implementation. By using financial clout and political connections, billionaires, not teachers, were able to influence the landscape of our education system. If states wanted a chunk of the RttT money, they had to adopt Common Core. If they adopt Common Core, they have to pay for the assessments and proprietary materials that come with it. Products that are “Common Core Aligned” have flung the door to K-12 wide open. Still not convinced Common Core is more about money than education? Check out the American Girl back-to-school accessory set children can buy, complete with a mini Common Core-aligned Pearson textbook.

Osborne notes the number of start-ups that have jumped into the education business, seeing this lucrative market, and she also notes that most start-ups don’t survive:

Given the growing emphasis on technology in the classroom plus Silicon Valley’s affinity for gadgets, there are dozens of start-ups trying to cash in on the new market. Rupert Murdoch’s company Amplify has created its own tablet and Common Core-aligned games. According to CNBC, the amount of venture capital invested in education start-ups quadrupled, from $154 million in 2003 to $630 million in 2012.

Mick Hewitt, co-founder and CEO of education start-up MasteryConnect, said earlier this year, “I would be wrong if I said the Common Core and the dollars around it haven’t driven a lot of the activity for us.” MasteryConnect raised more than $5.2 million in investments, $1.1 million of which came from the NewSchools Venture Fund, which in turn has received more than $16 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2010. Hewitt does not have an education background.

Note the investment in this particular start-up by the NewSchools Venture Fund. NSVF is the epicenter of the for-profit approach to education. Its CEO Ted Mitchell was nominated by the Obama administration to become Undersecretary of Education, the second most powerful job in the Department. NSVF is not known as a friend of public education, but as a source of funding and strategy for charter chains, charter schools, and for-profit ventures.

It should not be surprising, really, that Secretary Duncan picked the head of NSVF to become #2 at the Department of Education. In 2009, he asked Joanne Weiss, who was then the CEO of NSVF to run Race to the Top. Once the Race to the Top competition was completed, Weiss then became Duncan’s chief of staff. Weiss memorably described the rationale for the Common Core this way in a blog for the Harvard Business Review:

The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.

This was certainly the first time in history that the U.S. Department of Education created a program whose purpose was to stimulate new markets for entrepreneurs and investment.

Erin Osborne is an active member of the Education Bloggers Network, a group of bloggers who support public education. These were her first reflections on the recent conference of the Network for Public Education.

Emma Gulley is a student at one of America’s finest colleges, Bryn Mawr.

She was intrigued by the mystique of Teach for America, and she agreed to represent TFA on campus.

But the more she worked for them, the more she realized that she was not fulfilling her dream of “giving back” and “social justice,” but servicing a powerful and ambitious organization.

This is the story of her disillusionment. It appeared on Gary Rubinstein’s blog.

She writes:

“I was introduced to TFA as a college freshman, I interned for them for two years, and, had they had it “their way,” I would have interned for them for another year before teaching for two years and then being hired as a recruitment manager. The cycle from recruited to recruiter would be complete. I do feel that I was briefly inducted into a cult, and escaped to tell the tale, which is more than I can say for any other CCC I have ever met.”

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder’s pet project is the Educational Achievement Authority, where the lowest-performing districts are clustered in a single entity managed by Superintendent John Covington, a Broad Academy graduate. The EAA has been funded not only by taxpayers but by the Broad Foundation and many Detroit philanthropists.

For reasons documented amply by Eclectablog, the EAA has failed to help the state’s neediest children.

Now comes the state testing data, and the evidence is clear about the failure of the EAA.

How about research-based interventions, like reduced class sizes, wraparound services, the arts, medical care, and a sustained effort to reduce poverty and segregation?

Professor Bill Schmidt of Michigan State University told the Education Writers Association that most textbooks claiming o be aligned to the Common Core are not. The publishers slapped a sticker on the book and changed very little or nothing. Most textbooks he reviewed were a “sham,” sold by “snake oil salesmen.”

“Hoping to boost their share of a $9 billion annual market, many publishers now boast that their textbooks are “common-core aligned” and so can help spur the dramatic shifts in classroom instruction intended by the new standards for English/language arts and math.
But in a Feb. 21 presentation of his research at a seminar in Los Angeles hosted by the Education Writers Association, William Schmidt, a professor of statistics and education at Michigan State University in East Lansing, dismissed most purveyors of such claims as “snake oil salesmen” who have done little more than slap shiny new stickers on the same books they’ve been selling for years.

“Mr. Schmidt, who also co-directs the university’s Education Policy Center, and his team recently analyzed about 700 textbooks from 35 textbook series for grades K-8 that are now being used by 60 percent of public school children in the United States. Of those that purported to be aligned with the new standards, he said, some were “page by page, paragraph by paragraph” virtually identical to their old, pre-common-core versions.

“University of Southern California professor Morgan Polikoff, meanwhile, reached a similar conclusion after analyzing seven 4th grade math textbooks used in Florida. Despite publishers’ claims, the books were “only modestly aligned to the common core” and “systematically failed to reach the higher levels of cognitive demand” called for in the new standards, Mr. Polikoff said in a presentation to the EWA.”

Guy Brandenburg here reproduces the listing of anti-testing news from FairTest, an organization that has been ringing the alarm bells about standardized testing for years.

If you want to see the explosion of test boycotts, opt outs, and rollbacks, read the FairTest update.

A wonderful article appeared in today’s New York Times about the SAT. While the letters columns and the talking heads were discoursing on the meaning of the redesign of the SAT, Jennifer Finney Boylan, recounted her own tortured experience taking the SAT. She offers no hope that the changes are anything more than cosmetic.

Her view:

“All in all, the changes are intended to make SAT scores more accurately mirror the grades a student gets in school.

“The thing is, though, there already is something that accurately mirrors the grades a student gets in school. Namely: the grades a student gets in school. A better way of revising the SAT, from what I can see, would be to do away with it once and for all.

“The SAT is a mind-numbing, stress-inducing ritual of torture. The College Board can change the test all it likes, but no single exam, given on a single day, should determine anyone’s fate. The fact that we have been using this test to perform exactly this function for generations now is a national scandal.

“The problems with the test are well known. It measures memorization, not intelligence. It favors the rich, who can afford preparatory crash courses. It freaks students out so completely that they cannot even think.”

Even David Coleman acknowledges that high school grades are a better predictor of college success than the SAT.

Why do colleges need the SAT? The SAT will continue to reward the kids whose parents have the most money and education, as well as those who can afford to pay the most for SAT tutors. They happen to be the same families.

From: “Greg Basta, NYCC”
Subject: She is FED UP with Cuomo!
Date: March 7, 2014

Join Zakiyah’s Fight! Click Here To Sign The Petition Demanding Governor Cuomo Fully Fund Public Schools in NY State

I’m angry! Governor Cuomo claims to be the “students’ lobbyist,” but his actions tell a different story. For the last four years, he has severely underfunded New York’s public schools leaving public school students with limited opportunities and diminished abilities to compete. Then, just this week he vowed to divert funding to privately-run charter schools, which make up only 3% of the student population in the state. He cannot call himself the students’ lobbyist when he has ignored the needs of 97% of the students in this state.

We need a Governor that will serve ALL students, not just 3%. I’ve created a petition that is calling for the Governor to fulfill his constitutional obligation to all students by fully and fairly funding public schools. Click here to sign!
For the last four years, Governor Cuomo has kicked our public schools around like a soccer ball. He has forced them to make painful decisions, like having to choose between offering music classes or Kindergarten. This is absurd! Schools shouldn’t have to choose between the very basics and students shouldn’t be missing out on vital opportunities. It seems that Governor Cuomo is more concerned about appealing to his re-election campaign donors, like the Wall Street backers of privately-run charter school, than the students of New York who he claims to be a lobbyist for.

I will not stand idly by while he undercuts the future of a generation of students! Will you join me in holding him accountable to his constitutional obligation to educate every student? Sign the petition.

In solidarity,

Zakiyah Ansari,
Advocacy Director of the Alliance for Quality Education